Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Do you honestly believe that if 500 000 blacks had been freed and corruption and monopolies fought immediately after they all arrived in America, that America would be worse off? Do you HONESTLY believe slavery is good for development and progress? That it was NEEDED to enrich a tiny elite at the expense of the masses and the public coffers? To stifle human potential, stifle entrepreneurship, stifle innovation and creativity? It blows my mind how people actually try to argue that slavery of all things is necessary for human progress. Cant get any more regressive than that.
Some Western European countries were the first to have an elite who were forced to give up some of their power, status and privilege to the people. They were forced to give up some of their power, status and privilege because they were engaged in a constant power struggle with other European powers. The elites in any country will not give up their power if they are not forced to. Britain was the most economically democratic country in the world prior to industrialization. This causes development. It has nothing to do with Europeans being better or worse than anyone else. Or more evil. This is just nonsense.
I don't know if it was needed or not. I know that slavery IS WHAT HAPPENED. It would be nice to go back in time and run the American experiment without black African slaves but we can't. Slavery was necessary for white progress in this country. Stealing land and slaughtering natives was also deemed necessary. And like I said, the people that needed slaves telling others to catch up will always be funny. France was still collecting colonial taxes from African country up until a few years ago. Dance around it all you want. Slavery was the economic engine for Europe and America. Whether it was directly or indirectly. I'm sure there were people who didn't own a single slave but own slave ships to transport them. I'm sure there were people that didn't own a single slave but sold clothes made from slave-picked cotton in their stores. I'm sure there were people that didn't own slaves but made a living rounding up escaped slaves. Whole other industries spawned from slavery.
Stop trying to minimize the enormity of slavery.
edit: and again white southerners, if you check their own words, couldn't even imagine a world without blacks in slavery. That sure sounds like it was "needed" or the only way to them.
Note, I don't watch a bunch of youtube videos as sources for anything because they lack documentation of their reference material.
That said, I never stated that America would not have industrialized without slavery.... Nor did I say slavery has a hand in the present economy.
I said that for America, slavery played an important role in the industrialization of the country and the evolution of our economy. Contrary to what you all seem to know, the industrial age started in this land in the late 1700s, not the 1800s and certainly not in the 20th century. It was an offshoot of the British Industrial Revolution and since America was a British colony originally the early Industrial age did have an impact on the colonies and later on the new nation of the USA.
As noted, during that time period, there were slaves both north and south. Slaves were used in factories and industry primarily in the north and in both agriculture and industry in the south.
In regards to your blue portion regarding slaves being "laborers" that supports what I stated in that slaves built factories and worked in factories, they also worked in mines and quarries. Those are not all skilled labor positions but it should be noted that a large amount of slaves actually were skilled laborers.
The point is that industrialization would have happened regardless. Slavery is not in any way needed for human progress and development. Thats an absurdity. I get that some want to portray slavery as crucial and meaningful because so many people suffered but it was not.
I don't know if it was needed or not. I know that slavery IS WHAT HAPPENED. It would be nice to go back in time and run the American experiment without black African slaves but we can't. Slavery was necessary for white progress in this country. Stealing land and slaughtering natives was also deemed necessary. And like I said, the people that needed slaves telling others to catch up will always be funny. France was still collecting colonial taxes from African country up until a few years ago. Dance around it all you want. Slavery was the economic engine for Europe and America. Whether it was directly or indirectly. I'm sure there were people who didn't own a single slave but own slave ships to transport them. I'm sure there were people that didn't own a single slave but sold clothes made from slave-picked cotton in their stores. I'm sure there were people that didn't own slaves but made a living rounding up escaped slaves. Whole other industries spawned from slavery.
Stop trying to minimize the enormity of slavery.
edit: and again white southerners, if you check their own words, couldn't even imagine a world without blacks in slavery. That sure sounds like it was "needed" or the only way to them.
So you actually believe that slavery is needed for human progress!! Thats as regressive as it gets, and straight out of oligarch propaganda from centuries ago. Meanwhile, there are more slaves today than ever before. Lo and behold, these are in the least developed, most backwater parts of the world. Maybe you are wearing garments made by slaves at the moment? Slavery is an institution that harms human creativity and innovation, inhibits economic freedom and creates corrupt oligarchies that further slows down progress.
Funny how you quote self-serving oligarchs from the south as some proof of how good slavery was for development. We already know that countless countries have developed without slave colonies and slavery. Its like quoting the private health care industry as proof of how necessary it is to deny tens of millions of Americans health care.
You talk about France but France is not any richer than Germany or Austria. On the contrary, France is poorer than Germany or Austria. Yet, you claim that "France collected taxes from colonies until a few years ago" like that is some type of proof that this is why it is developed, when neighboring Germany and Austria are richer with no colonies. You seem to grossly misunderstand how wealth is created. Fighting corruption, monopolies and giving the people more economic freedom and education is what makes a country developed. Not oppression, slavery and "collecting taxes from Africa".
IMHO there were two, among many, important factors that foretold the end of Cotton as King. One was the replacement of sail driven ships, some of which used acres of cotton sail cloth that continually had to be replaced, with iron ships and steam engines that were the products of industry not agriculture. The demand for cotton decreased precipitously in less than fifty years. The other was the development in the Connecticut River Valley (based on research done by the Precision Museum in Windsor Vermont) that was instrumental in the manufacturing of precision interchangeable parts (Eli Whitney grabbed the glory but did not invent the process). They also developed a machine to carve rifle stocks from a master pattern. this reduced the time required to nearly complete a gun stock fro 8 to 10 hours by one carver to about 15 minutes on a machine that made one stock at a time. Most made four or more simultaneously. That company's first order in 1840 was for 10,000 military rifles. Later orders were made at other factories using the licensed machinery.
While slavery was very profitable, and the NYC and City of London Bankers were very aware of this, investing in mass production manufacturing was even more profitable. That investment was made on the North as the south had no use for making machines for themselves as they could buy all they needed from the North. When that supply and the supply from other countries was effectively eliminated by the Union blockade the fate of the south was set. As I said in another post, "While the South made cannon fodder the North made cannon."
The point is that industrialization would have happened regardless. Slavery is not in any way needed for human progress and development. Thats an absurdity. I get that some want to portray slavery as crucial and meaningful because so many people suffered but it was not.
The point is that in America, it did not happen without slavery.
To ignore this or reason it away is idiocy and willful ignorance.
I have no desire to portray slavery in any specific way. I spoke the truth about what it was. You are speaking in "would've/could'ves" instead of speaking on what actually happened. That's the point.
Note, I don't watch a bunch of youtube videos as sources for anything because they lack documentation of their reference material.
One of the videos is from Noam Chomsky. Two of the videos are from HBO's "John Adams Miniseries", which was written by award-winning historian David McCullough, and is based on the actual writings of the founding fathers.
I don't link to low-quality, or propagandist videos. You should watch them, at the very least the Noam Chomsky video. And if you don't know who Noam Chomsky is, you're not an intellectual.
Quote:
Originally Posted by residinghere2007
I said that for America, slavery played an important role in the industrialization of the country and the evolution of our economy.
Slavery existed, and so certainly, slavery played a role in America's economy and development. Just as oil exists in this country, and it also plays a role in our economy and development.
But the issue being raised is whether America's industry was built by slavery. Or more-specifically, whether America would have industry at all, or be the industrial powerhouse it now is, had it not been for slavery. Which comes to the real question, whether America owes slavery for its current wealth.
I do not believe for a moment that America wouldn't be the industrial powerhouse it now is had we never had slavery. Thus I do not agree with the supposition that America's wealth is owed to slavery. Just as America's wealth isn't the result of oil. Even if oil plays a large role in our economy.
In fact, America is the only major industrial power to have even had slavery. And we became an industrial power after much of Europe did. With the greatest industrial power being Germany, and not only did it never have slaves, but it never even had colonies with slaves.
The scope of America's industrial power has far more to do with our geographic size than anything else. Let-alone that the European powers destroyed themselves in multiple World Wars. And in both, we made huge amounts of money by financing and supplying, often both sides. While we were ourselves protected by two oceans.
Contrary to what you all seem to know, the industrial age started in this land in the late 1700s, not the 1800s and certainly not in the 20th century.
In my post in which you responded, I said.... "Alexander Hamilton wanted to copy the British system, with only minor changes, calling it the "American System", from the moment the Declaration of Independence was signed."
The Declaration was signed in 1776, and Alexander Hamilton was a banker, and he was already in the thick of industry long before we even became an independent country. In fact, the American Revolution was a merchants revolution.
In fact, I also posted this link in my above post.
In it, it discusses how Alexander Hamilton basically rejected the Adam Smith economic doctrine. Which advocated for free-trade. And instead, Alexander Hamilton pushed for protectionism, and subsidization of industry. And that was while he was Secretary of the Treasury under George Washington, basically 1789 to 1796.
Quote:
Originally Posted by residinghere2007
As noted, during that time period, there were slaves both north and south. Slaves were used in factories and industry primarily in the north and in both agriculture and industry in the south.
It was legal to own slaves in the North, true, but there were always very few slaves in the North. Especially in New England, where there were almost zero. At independence, there were still many slaves in places like Pennsylvania, many of which were owned by George Washington himself.
BTW, before you spazz about youtube videos. That one is Ralph Nader(the Green-party candidate), and Andrew Napolitano.
George Washington's slaves were not employed in manufacture. Very very few slaves ever were. I am sure we can find a number of exceptions, and we can pretend that those exceptions are the rule, but it isn't true, and you know it.
I mean, many slaves were paid wages, and some of those slaves even took those wages and purchased their own freedom. And even some of those slaves which purchased their own freedom, then began purchasing slaves of their own, and ran their own plantations.
So what? I'm not going to sit here obsessing about the exceptions, I'm trying to discuss the general circumstances of the time, and why things were the way they were.
The simple truth is, slavery or no slavery, as long as America adopted the Hamiltonian model, and stole as much of the land from the natives as we could, America was destined to become the superpower it now is. It was actually slavery which inhibited the growth of American industry, and nearly turned us into Brazil.
So you actually believe that slavery is needed for human progress!! Thats as regressive as it gets, and straight out of oligarch propaganda from centuries ago. Meanwhile, there are more slaves today than ever before. Lo and behold, these are in the least developed, most backwater parts of the world. Maybe you are wearing garments made by slaves at the moment? Slavery is an institution that harms human creativity and innovation, inhibits economic freedom and creates corrupt oligarchies that further slows down progress.
Funny how you quote self-serving oligarchs from the south as some proof of how good slavery was for development. We already know that countless countries have developed without slave colonies and slavery. Its like quoting the private health care industry as proof of how necessary it is to deny tens of millions of Americans health care.
You talk about France but France is not any richer than Germany or Austria. On the contrary, France is poorer than Germany or Austria. Yet, you claim that "France collected taxes from colonies until a few years ago" like that is some type of proof that this is why it is developed, when neighboring Germany and Austria are richer with no colonies. You seem to grossly misunderstand how wealth is created. Fighting corruption, monopolies and giving the people more economic freedom and education is what makes a country developed. Not oppression, slavery and "collecting taxes from Africa".
That poster also didn't say the bold. He said that slavery is what happened. He even put it in all caps lol
Not sure why you think someone is arguing something else. Both of us said it happened. Do you dispute that it happened?
One of the videos is from Noam Chomsky. Two of the videos are from HBO's "John Adams Miniseries", which was written by award-winning historian David McCullough, and is based on the actual writings of the founding fathers.
I don't link to low-quality, or propagandist videos. You should watch them, at the very least the Noam Chomsky video. And if you don't know who Noam Chomsky is, you're not an intellectual.
Slavery existed, and so certainly, slavery played a role in America's economy and development. Just as oil exists in this country, and it also plays a role in our economy and development.
But the issue being raised is whether America's industry was built by slavery. Or more-specifically, whether America would have industry at all, or be the industrial powerhouse it now is, had it not been for slavery. Which comes to the real question, whether America owes slavery for its current wealth.
I do not believe for a moment that America wouldn't be the industrial powerhouse it now is had we never had slavery. Thus I do not agree with the supposition that America's wealth is owed to slavery. Just as America's wealth isn't the result of oil. Even if oil plays a large role in our economy.
In fact, America is the only major industrial power to have even had slavery. And we became an industrial power after much of Europe did.
The scope of America's industrial power has far more to do with our geographic size than anything else. Let-alone that the European powers destroyed themselves in multiple World Wars. And in both, we made huge amounts of money by financing and supplying, often both sides. While we were ourselves protected by two oceans.
In my post in which you responded, I said.... "Alexander Hamilton wanted to copy the British system, with only minor changes, calling it the "American System", from the moment the Declaration of Independence was signed."
The Declaration was signed in 1776, and Alexander Hamilton was a banker, and he was already in the thick of industry long before we even became an independent country. In fact, the American Revolution was a merchants revolution.
In fact, I also posted this link in my above post.
In it, it discusses how Alexander Hamilton basically rejected the Adam Smith economic doctrine. Which basically advocated for free-trade. And instead, Alexander Hamilton pushed for protectionism, and subsidization of industry. And that was while he was Secretary of the Treasury under George Washington, basically 1789 to 1796.
It was legal to own slaves in the North, true, but there were always very few slaves in the North. Especially in New England, where there were almost zero. At independence, there were still many slaves in places like Pennsylvania, many of which were owned by George Washington himself.
BTW, before you spazz about youtube videos. That one is Ralph Nader(the Green-party candidate), and Andrew Napolitano.
George Washington's slaves were not employed in manufacture, very very few of them ever were. I am sure we can find a number of exceptions, and we can pretend that those exceptions are the rule, but it isn't true.
I mean, many slaves were paid wages, and some of those slaves even took those wages and purchased their own freedom. And even some of those slaves which purchased their own freedom, then began purchasing slaves of their own, and ran their own plantations.
So what? I'm not going to sit here obsessing about the exceptions, I'm trying to discuss the general circumstances of the time, and why things are the way they are.
The simple truth is, slavery or no slavery, as long as America adopted the Hamiltonian model, and stole as much of the land from the natives as we could, America was destined to become the superpower it now is. It was actually slavery which actually inhibited the growth of American industry, and nearly turned us into Brazil.
Again, I don't watch videos as sources. I really don't care who is speaking either. I don't "spazz" on them, just I don't view them as valid sources and a lot of my day to day life involves verifying information and source material and it is always better to steer clear from videos unless the information being shared in them has footnotes or source material.
Also, what you stated in regards to slavery in the north is not entirely the big picture. As I noted, people often think of slaves as only being menial laborers and you ignore the fact that they were forced to work in industry and even were owned by companies, colleges, and vocational school and other organizations that were vital to the development of our country's economy post Revolution.
I don't think you are denying this so not sure if you are arguing something else or not. My point was that slaves worked in the north and south. That the Industrial Revolution began in the 1700s in America and that slavery expanded primarily due to the Industrial Revolution, both north and south. Even though videos and even various, un-cited internet sources, will say, for instance that slavery ended in NY State in 1799, they ignore the fact that it was not completely abolished in NY State until 1827. One of America's most well known former slaves - Sojourner Truth, was NY slave who escaped slavery in 1826. NY State was a state full of industry, as were many other states and slaves were employed in those industries and as employers in various companies, businesses, and even municipalities in those areas. The Mid-Atlantic region had slavery in various parts up until the Civil War itself. Again, I don't think you are denying all of this.
My overarching point was and is that slavery was used to ramp up the economy post Revolution. That is also what the book basically centered on and it is true that this was the case. Anyone arguing against the fact is suggesting revisionist history.
So you actually believe that slavery is needed for human progress!! Thats as regressive as it gets, and straight out of oligarch propaganda from centuries ago. Meanwhile, there are more slaves today than ever before. Lo and behold, these are in the least developed, most backwater parts of the world. Maybe you are wearing garments made by slaves at the moment? Slavery is an institution that harms human creativity and innovation, inhibits economic freedom and creates corrupt oligarchies that further slows down progress.
Funny how you quote self-serving oligarchs from the south as some proof of how good slavery was for development. We already know that countless countries have developed without slave colonies and slavery. Its like quoting the private health care industry as proof of how necessary it is to deny tens of millions of Americans health care.
You talk about France but France is not any richer than Germany or Austria. On the contrary, France is poorer than Germany or Austria. Yet, you claim that "France collected taxes from colonies until a few years ago" like that is some type of proof that this is why it is developed, when neighboring Germany and Austria are richer with no colonies. You seem to grossly misunderstand how wealth is created. Fighting corruption, monopolies and giving the people more economic freedom and education is what makes a country developed. Not oppression, slavery and "collecting taxes from Africa".
All you're saying is that in some alternate universe the building a nation without slavery is possible. Sure. But building America DIDN'T HAPPENED WITHOUT SLAVERY. I'm not even debating the possibility of this or that. I'm talking about what actually happened. America's economy is rooted the black-Africans being put into chattel slavery. You can try all you want to find some wiggle room around it. You're desperately trying to downplay the enormity of black chattel slavery because you deep down need to feel like things have been fair and that you and your family weren't the ultimate moochers. There's a certain feeling of superiority in believing "we all had the same exact fair shot in America, blacks just are just inferior".
And again France was still collecting colonial taxes from African countries up until a few years ago. Sounds like they needed it. White southerners who were alive during slavery clearly felt like black slavery was the only way this thing called America would work. They put slaves on confederate money like they were bald eagles or the statue of liberty.(proudly right at the top and center) They couldn't imagine building America without slavery.
The point is that in America, it did not happen without slavery.
To ignore this or reason it away is idiocy and willful ignorance.
I have no desire to portray slavery in any specific way. I spoke the truth about what it was. You are speaking in "would've/could'ves" instead of speaking on what actually happened. That's the point.
Thats like saying it didnt happen without repression of gays so it is needed for development. Or that denying tens of millions of Americans health care is needed because development didnt happen in America when everyone has healthcare. Nobody is denying that slavery happened, but to suggest that it is necessary for development is absurd and I think you know it. Development happened despite slavery and if slaves had been freed the moment they set foot in America, we would all be better off. Please dont try to defend slavery as a vehicle for human progress.
Last edited by PCALMike; 11-01-2017 at 03:49 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
